[GNSO-RPM-WG] [gnso-rpm-wg] "Lack of cause of action" followup (URS proposals #18, #19, #20)

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

Without responding to all the points in this thread (which Rebecca,
Nat, and Paul Keating already ably addressed), I would like to point
out (in case Georges N. missed it, when he expressed his concerns and
suggested "some form of bond" in the event of escalation to the
courts) that proposal #18 *does* specifically protect against
frivolous litigation in the courts. The Notice of Objection, just like
in the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal system, would need
to be accompanied by a fee, and furthermore there would be cost
consequences if misused.

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-18.pdf?api=v2

>From Section #4:

" The Notice of Objection fee should be set comparable to the court
fees in filing a statement of defense, to prevent any gaming.
Futhermore, gaming is reduced due to the cost consequences upon a
party making the notice of objection if they fail to do better in
court than in the ADR."

>From Section #3 (which links to
https://civilresolutionbc.ca/how-the-crt-works/how-the-process-ends/#what-if-i-dont-agree-with-the-decision
)"

(via the BC CRT website) "If the person who filed the Notice of
Objection does not have a better outcome in the BC Provincial Court
than in the CRT’s decision, the BC Provincial Court may order that
party to pay a penalty to the other party."

By taking as a solution to the URS problems a system that ***already
exists elsewhere*** and is balanced, I hoped to eliminate these
criticisms that the proposal was one-sided, etc. The goal was to
eliminate the "role reversal" which is causing the lack of access to
the courts by registrants in some jurisdictions, and this approach
accomplishes that goal cleanly and efficiently.

If the critics of these proposals wish to eliminate judicial review
entirely, then that would not be acceptable.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/